David Maus <address@hidden> writes:
> Sebastian Rose wrote:
>>Is there a reason for this distinction between multibyte and unibyte?
>>I favour the "shotgun-approach" if not. It's bullet-proof.
>
>>The JavaScript function `encodeURIComponent()' encodes the German Umlaut
>>`ü' as `%C3%B6' regardless of the sources encoding actually. That's why
>>I wrote the two functions `org-protocol-unhex-string' and
>>`org-protocol-unhex-compound' (s. org-protocol.el).
>
> Ah, yes. From my understandig of the RFC %C3%BC is a valid
> representation of the "ü" character.
>
> I do not yet fully understand
> how to unescape such a representation. E.g. Is %C3%BC a hexencoded
> multibyte char or a succession of two singlebyte chars?
It's a hexencoded multibyte char.
JavaScript implementations seem to turn non-ascii singlebyte chars into
multibyte chars first, then encode the result.
This means if a page is iso-8859-1 encoded (singlebyte `ü'), JavaScript
will recode the `ü'. It's funny, but that's what I found when writing
org-protocol.el
`org-protocol-unhex-string' and `org-protocol-unhex-compound' decode
such a representation.
The trick is in the utf-8 encoding itself. If a byte starts with a 1,
another byte will follow. The number of leading `1's denotes the amount
of bytes used for one character. On a GNU/Linux system try
sh$ man utf-8
Sebastian